The Laurens advertiser. (Laurens, S.C.) 1885-1973, 1887-03-30
COMMERCIAL FERTILIZERS.


- 'l"'N NN''hiOil 10 Il'flf comp pluinjS
OF the worthlcssncss of Il large proper.
ton OF the commercial fertilizers sold &c
farmers. That some Of these complaints
arc well founded there is little Doubt
mat many more arc unreasonable and
unjust Is quite probable. Many farmers
insist that the fertilizers OF late years arc
not SO good as those Of ten or twelve
years or more back. Let us look into
the matter little.
The average farmer judges of the
merits or quality OF Il fertilizer by fine
ELECTS OF tho same on the crop to which
1T was applied. indeed, this is the only
way he can safely determine whether a
fertilizer has returned fair pcrccntnoc
on the investment. But how oltcu is il
true that tho crop grows OIL nicely and
everything appears to promise good
ylcld, and ut last somC casualty Of
drought, or wet or frost, cuts on the
crop, During the carly, and probably
the middle stages of growth, the farmer
Is pleased with the fertilizer; but when
he gathers his crop and the guanu man
wants hlS pay, and the bncon and flour
and dry goods bills, the doctors bill
cs';., must be met -tha cotton won't 90
round. The dry weather, or the worms,
or the 'storm in Scptcmbcr," or some
one or moro of the many casualties to
which cotton is liable, has cut OIL the
crop. May be the fertilizer was TO
blame. But the fertilizer did not cause
the storm, nor the drought, nor the
worms; neither could it prevent these
casualties.
On the other hand, if the plant starts
oil well and the seasons and other con
dltlons continue auspicious to the end OF
the harvest, and the farmer gathers II
large crop, he IS apt to he pleased with
the fertilizer he used rs well us every
thing that was connected with the CROP.
One very important prucautuu is over
looked by Il largo maJurity ot farmers
who use commercial icrtl!lhuus. viz: the
test OF the scales. 1t Is unreasonable TO
insist that Il fertilizer has "dOuc the crop
no good when no test or experiment
rows have been set apart, the .rrtiiHor
carefully weighed and distributed, and
the yield OF the crop gathered and
weighed under the very eye of the pro-
prietor. With such test plat, or scy-
cral of them, accurately comdu, ted, it Is
possible to easily and certainly dctcrm.
inc what has been the economic result.
On different soils and with different sea-
SONS and other conditions, tuc results
will bo discordant OF ditlcrrut, even
when the Identical fertilizer las bccm
used. One OF the most important con
tlitions-Or rather circumstances that
affects the question OF profit when tile
money has been paid, OF is to he paid
for the fertilizer, is the pricu OF cotton.
But if to be paid for in cotton il does not
affect the question ut all.
Now, what is Il fair profit ON the in
vcstment III fertilizer? y tanner ought
to be well coNtcnt to realize s OF 10 per
cent. per annum profit on all the tiNcd
and working capital employed in his
business after allowing reasonable sum
for his services and for wear und tear
Insurance, etc. He would GLADLY rent
out his land, or portion ui 10, ON such
terms and devote his personal lu;,ut,Uu
to something else. Then Why should
he expect amy greater per cont. profit,
zone year with another on his invest.
mcnt III fertilizer?
One ton OF standard lcrtiiiIcls, hauled
and distributed in the soil, costs, say
thirty $500 dollars cash. The money is
paid-say April lst t-nnd the crop is
harvested and ready for market say
October lst- six months. Suppose the
increased yield of cotton, after dcducting
the extra expenses of packing and
ginning, and adding the value OF the
extra seed, is thirty five dollars, or five
dollars clear profit. Five dollars net in
crease III the value OF the crop due to
usc of Il ton Of fertilizer wOuM not be
considered unusual; II Is probably much
below the average results. Eut five dol
lars on thirty dollars, Tor sin months, ls
163 per cent, or 33 per cont. per
annum! Or suppose 30 pounds Of lint
cotton is the price agreed upon Tor the
fertilizer, payable November lst, and
that the increased yield is 20 pounds.
We now have 70 pounds of iiut cotton
more than enough to pay for the fer
tiliZer
No reasonable man will be likely to
deny the fairness of the above figures,
The per cent. increase credited to the
fertilizer is probably less than the aver
age results Of the use of commercial for
tilizers in general good, bad and in.
diifercnt--ior Il series OF years together,
say for the last ten years Iii true that
they are not so great ns for the prcccd-
ing period OF ten years, or, IN other
words, that commercial fertilizers do not
yield as good results on the same fields
as they did ten or fifteen years ago. This
may be accounted FOR without assuming
that the quality of commercial fertilizers
has been lowered. Chemical analysis
shows that they have not. Field tests
on similar lands that have not been "nm
to death" in cotton with concentrated
fertilizers prove that the same results
can now be secured rs before, with aver
age fertilizers of the present time, More
over, the price OF standard fertilizers has
steadily declined-tho cost Of material
and manipulation being less and compc.
tition reducing the profits of the manu-.
facturers and dealers.
What, then, is the difficulty? Dc
those farmers who refrain from tho use
of commercial fertilize,t succeed any
{ better? If thcy do, is their prosperity
due to their policy i'll this respect, Or is
it not in spite OF II, and because of ex
ceptional skill, industry, economy
especially in the utilizing nome manWi
al resources? When the latter policy is
supplemented by the judicious (and